Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) The prosecution case is that on 5-1-1985 at 11.00 AM.Shri Madan Lal of M/s National Seed Store 118-A,Bharola,Azadpur, Delhi was keeping brinjal seeds for sale and at that time sample of seed of brinjal (of Pusa Kranti variety) was lifted by a Seed Inspector This seed was of M/s. Centaury Seed Pvt. Ltd., Anupam Bhavan, Nani Wala Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi. On examination by the Seed Analyst the sample was found substandard vide the report dated 1-3-1984 of the Seed Analyst The com,plaint was thereupon filed under Section 17/19 of the Act.

(5) Sample in this case was lifted by the Seed Inspector on 5-1-1984 and the same was received by Seed Analyst on 16-1-1984 and he prepared his report on 1-3-1984 after 45 days of the receipt of the sample.

(6) Under Rule 21(3) of the Seeds Rules. 1968 (in short the Rules') as amended by the Seeds (Amendment) Rules. 197} the Seed Analyst is bound to deliver the copy of his report of analysis to the Seed Inspector and the person from whom the sample was lifted (Vide Section 16(1) of the Act) within 30 days from the date of his receiving the sample. Mr. Sodhi representing the State submitted that the aforesaid period of 30 days stood amended in view of the time limit of 60 days prescribed for the analysis in Section 14 of the Seeds Control Order, 1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation) dated 30-12-1983 issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which reads as follows : - "TIME limit for analysis The laboratory to which a sample has been sent by an Inspector for analysis under this Order shall analyze the said samples and send the analysis report to the concerned Inspector within 60 days from the date of receipt of the sample in the laboratory." This contention of Mr, Sodhi is erroneous and cannot be accepted as this. Order was issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and not under the Seeds Act, 1966 and the scope and the fields of the two are quite different and distinct from each other, inasmuch as the provisions of this Order pertain to the great/refusal/renewal of the license and its period of validity or with the dealers displaying the stocks and price-list whereas the Seeds Act and the Rules made there under talk of altogether other things including the standard of the seeds to be sold and the sample lifted.

(7) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Rule 21(3) of the Seeds Rules, 1968 as amended by the Seeds (Amendment) Rules, 1973 the Seed Analyst was under a statutory obligation to deliver in Form Vii a copy of the report of the result of analysis to the persons specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 16, as soon as may be, but not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of sample sent by the Seed Inspector under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Seeds Act. Under Section 16(1) the Seed Analyst is to analyze the sample at the State Seeds Laboratory and deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, one copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the Seed Inspector and another copy thereof to the person from whom the sample has been taken On. the basis of the aforesaid provisions the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the report of the Seed Analyst having been prepared after 45 days of the receipt of sample by him, was necessarily delivered to be Seed Inspector and the petitioner later than that in violation of the aforesaid mandated maximum period of 30 days He has further contended that in view of the aforesaid mandate of maximum period of 30 days and the prosecution having been launched against the petitioner still much later on 1-8-1984. the petitioner was deprived of his vital and valuable right of getting the sample in question re-tested from the Central Seed Laboratory as provided in Subsection (2) of Section 16 of the Act which is reproduced below :- "AFTER the institution of a prosecution under this Act, the accused vendor or the complainant may. on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application to the court for sending any of the samples mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause (c) of Subsection (2) of Section 15 to the Central Seed Laboratory for its report and on receipt of the application, the court shall first ascertain that the mark and the seal or fastening as provided in Clause (b) of Sub-section,(l) of Section 15 are intact and may then dispatch the sample under its own seal to the Central Seed Laboratory which shall thereupon send its report to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of the analysis."

(8) The learned counsel for the petitioner also raised a question of limitation in respect of the launching of the prosecution in this case. Section 19(i) of the Act provides for the first offence of contravening of any provision or any rule made there under with fine which may extend to Rs 500/ only and Section 468 of the Code provides a bar to the taking of cognizance of offences after lapse of a period of' limitation and Sub-section (2) thereof prescribes six months as the period of limitation, if the offence is punishable with fine only. So, the offence is hand is governed by the period of limitation of 6 months Now, the question is as to which is the date from which this period of limitation is to start and the answer to that finds mention in Section 469(l)(b) of the Code according to which where the commission of the offence is not known to a person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, it is the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier. The period of limitation for the prosecution for that offence could not start in the case in hand when the sample was lifted, as the making of the offence could not be known and it could be known only when the Seed Analyst submitted his report to the Seed Inspector under Section 16(1) of the Act whereupon the Seed Inspector could launch the prosecution against the offender. In this case, even though the sample was lifted on 3-1-1984, that is not the material date for the purpose of limitation, but the starting point of limitation is 1-3-1984 when the report of Seed Analyst was received by the Seed Inspector . and keeping that date in view the prosecution against the petitioner launched on 1-8-1984 is obviously within the statutory limitation of six months, and thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of limitation is not correct and must be discarded.